CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE:

The tale of two states!

PRESENTED BY:
NAMAN SHARMA – 17BAL033
KAREENA BAKHTYARPURI – 17BAL122
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY &
ORS.

WITH

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY

TO GOVERNMENT & ORS.
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT & ORS.

WITH

STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH THE SECRETARY

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
02
 BRIEF
BACKGROUND
OF THE
DISPUTE

03
 The river Cauvery is the third largest river of
South India, and the sharing of water has beco
1. me an issue of conflict between Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu.

There were two agreements in the year

1892 & 1924, but now Karnataka has now
2. claimed that the agreements have been unfair
and that ‘equitable sharing of waters’
should be ensured.

However Tamil Nadu claims that it would not

3. be possible to do so.

04
 As Kerala and Pondicherry also claimed
share of Cauvery water after India attained
Independence, a Fact Finding Committee Post – Independence
was set-up in 1970 to figure out the
situation on ground.

After submission of the report, the states

reached at an agreement in 1976. 1970
2007
However, later when Tamil Nadu got its
new government, it refused to give consent 1976
to terms of agreement which led to fresh
disputes.
1990
In 1986, Tamil Nadu government appealed 1986
the Central government to constitute a
tribunal for solving the issue under
Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956.

05
 TIMELINE
The dispute arose after the Agreement of 1924 lapsed in t
he year 1974.

Constitution of Some dramatic events took place in

1990 Cauvery Water Dispute Tamil Nadu.
Tribunal by the direction
1993
of SC.

Publication of notification of Constitution of Cauvery

1991 the interim award in gazette of 1998 River Authority.
Government of India.

06
Protests against release of
water to Tamil Distress sharing formula
was decided, however
Nadu and formation of
Karnataka refused to
Cauvery Monitoring implement this.
Committee Panel. 2003 2006
Loopholes in the Compromise on water
2002 functioning of
Authority were
2005 sharing was entered
into.
exposed

07
 Creation of Cauvery
Water Management
Board. 2013

Petition was filed before SC

201 when Karnataka refused to
2007
6 follow the final award
seeking execution of the
Violent protests took place award.
in Karnataka.

08
In 2016, the Tamil Nadu Karnataka argued
that it was unfair to
government sought the
require the state to
Supreme Court’s interven release fixed amount of
tion claiming that Karnat water irrespective of the
availability of water.
aka had failed to fully
The state also made stro
comply with a series of or ng case on drinking wat
ders passed by the court er needs of Bengaluru
regarding timely release
of water from Cauvery.
We have many PowerP
oint templates

www.yourwebsite.com 09
WATER IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

ENTRY 56, ENTRY 17, Entry 56 of Union List gives power

LIST I LIST II, to the Union Government for the
regulation and development of inter
-state rivers and river valleys to the
extent declared by Parliament to be
Entry 17 of State List deals with expedient in the public interest.
water i.e. water supply, irrigation,
canal, drainage, embankments,
water storage and water power.
Water is a State subject as per entry 17 of
State List and thus states are empowered to
enact legislation on water.
10
 ARTICLE 262 OF THE CONSTITUTION
IWDA
In case, if a particular state or
states approach to Union Gover
nment for the constitution of the
tribunal:
Central Government should try
to resolve the matter by consulta
tion among the aggrieved states.
In case, if it does not work, then
it may constitute the tribunal.
www.yourwebsite.com
The purpose of this Act was to
enable the Union Government to
create Boards for Interstate Rivers
and river valleys in consultation
with State Governments.
1956
The objective of Boards is to
advise on the inter-state basin to
prepare development scheme and
262 to prevent the emergence of
RBA
conflicts.
1956
11
 JUDGMENT

A three-judges bench of Chief Justice

Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava
Roy and AM Khanwilkar
Strengths Weakness
pronounced the judgement on the
Cauvery Water Dispute between the
states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and
Kerala and the UT of Puducherry,
partially allowing the appeal
Opportunities Threats preferred by the state of Karnataka in
2007 against the order of the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal.

12
After coming into force of the 1947 Act, the doctrine of paramountcy
has no room for application as the Government of India became the
full sovereign authority.

The bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India is not attracted.

Referring to river Cauvery as a “national asset”, the Supreme

Court has further said that “no single state can claim exclusive
ownership of river water when it is passing through different
states”

The Court acknowledged Bengaluru’s need of water and

based the supply of water to Bengaluru and stated that:

Drinking water requirement of the overall population of all

the States has to be placed on a higher pedestal.

13
 The Tribunal in its approach primarily referred to Hel
sinki Rules, 1966 which rejected the Harmon doctrine
and laid stress on equitable utilization of international
rivers.

The principle of equitable apportionment

internationally recognized by the Helsinki
Rules, Compione Rules and Berlin Rules
which have also been incorporated in the
1987 to 2002 National Water Policies, have
been regarded to be the guiding factor for
resolving disputes qua apportionment of
water of an interstate river.

www.yourwebsite.com 14
 The judgment will go down in history for two reasons:

1 One, it pronounces water of multi-state rivers

as a national asset, thus, rectifying, for all
practical purposes, the historic error of making
water a state subject under the Constitution.

2. It defines the concept of equitable sharing of

water in a holistic and unambiguous manner
broadly in line with the United Nations
convention on international watercourses
(popularly called the Helsinki Convention)
which came into force in 2014.

15